UPHESC Assistant Professor Law 2025 PYQs

Concept: Hugo Grotius, author of De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), is called the father of the law of nations (international law).

1. Gentilis, Ayala and Brunus were earlier writers – ‘forerunners’ of Grotius.
2. Grotius also wrote Mare Liberum (freedom of the seas).

Short trick: Grotius 1625 – War & Peace.

Concept: Article 59 of the ICJ Statute: the decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.

1. There is no rule of binding precedent in the ICJ.
2. Under Art. 38(1)(d) judicial decisions are only a subsidiary means for determining rules of law.

Short trick: 59 = no stare decisis – binds parties only.

Concept: In Luther v. Sagor (1921) the English Court of Appeal gave retroactive effect to the British recognition of the Soviet Government, validating its earlier (1919) confiscation of timber.

1. Tinoco Arbitration (1923) – non-recognition does not by itself prove absence of a government.
2. Paquete Habana (1900) – customary international law is part of the law of the land (US).
3. Haile Selassie v. Cable & Wireless (1939) – de jure/de facto recognition and title to property.

Short trick: Luther v. Sagor = Soviet timber, recognition dates back.

Concept: Article 1 of the UDHR (10 Dec 1948): “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…”.

1. Art. 2 – non-discrimination; Art. 3 – right to life, liberty and security; Art. 4 – prohibition of slavery.
2. UDHR has 30 Articles.

Short trick: Art. 1 = Born free & equal (first words of the UDHR).

Concept: Lord Coleridge C.J. gave this definition in R. v. Keyn (the Franconia case, 1876).

1. S. S. Lotus (1927, PCIJ) – jurisdiction on the high seas; positivist view of state consent.
2. West Rand Central Gold Mining v. The King (1905) – Lord Alverstone on international law in English courts.
3. Asylum case (1950) – Colombia v. Peru, regional custom.

Short trick: Coleridge → Keyn (Franconia).

Concept: Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute lists international conventions (treaties) and international custom first; they are the primary and most important sources.

1. General principles of law recognised by civilised nations come third.
2. Judicial decisions and teachings of publicists (juristic works) are only ‘subsidiary means’ (Art. 38(1)(d)).

Short trick: Treaty + Custom = primary; Courts + Jurists = subsidiary.

Concept: Proceedings in camera and bar on printing/publishing them is Section 22 HMA; Section 23 deals with decree in proceedings (court’s duty to be satisfied, reconciliation).

1. Sec. 5 – conditions; Sec. 8 – registration; Sec. 18 – punishment for contravention of conditions in Sec. 5 – all correct.
2. Sec. 22 was inserted by the 1976 amendment.

Short trick: 22 = in camera; 23 = decree.

Concept: The proviso to Section 24 HMA (application for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding to be disposed of, as far as possible, within 60 days of service of notice) was inserted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 49 of 2001).

1. Act 68 of 1976 – Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (major divorce reforms).
2. Act 44 of 1964 – amended Sec. 13(1A).

Short trick: 2001 → 60 days for interim maintenance.

Concept: Shah Bano (1985) was decided by a 5-judge bench: CJ Y. V. Chandrachud, D. A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy, E. S. Venkataramiah and Ranganath Misra.

1. It held that a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance under Sec. 125 CrPC.
2. Justice Dipak Misra joined the Supreme Court only in 2011.

Short trick: Shah Bano bench = Chandrachud-led ‘5’; Dipak Misra was decades later.

Concept: Section 17 HMA: a bigamous Hindu marriage is void and the provisions of Sections 494 and 495 IPC apply.

1. Sec. 494 – marrying again during lifetime of spouse; Sec. 495 – same offence with concealment of former marriage.
2. Sec. 493 – cohabitation by deceit; 496 – fraudulent ceremony; 497 – adultery (struck down in Joseph Shine, 2018).

Short trick: 17 → 494 + 495 (BNS: 82).

Concept: Under Sunni (Hanafi) law, marriage with a fifth wife while four are alive is irregular (fasid), not void – the bar is temporary and disappears if one wife dies or is divorced.

1. Other irregular marriages: without witnesses, during iddat, with a non-kitabia, unlawful conjunction.
2. Under Shia law such a marriage is void (batil).

Short trick: Fifth wife (Sunni) = Fasid; removable bar = irregular.

Concept: Section 12 HAMA: from the date of adoption the child is deemed the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes, and ties with the birth family are severed (with provisos).

1. Sec. 11 – other conditions for a valid adoption; Sec. 13 – right of adoptive parents to dispose of property; Sec. 14 – determination of adoptive mother.

Short trick: 11 conditions → 12 effects → 13 property.

Concept: Winfield called it the ‘Law of Tort’ (one general principle of liability); Salmond called it the ‘Law of Torts’ (pigeon-hole theory).

1. ‘Law of Torts’ is Salmond’s, not Austin’s.
2. ‘Tortum’ is a Latin word (to twist), not French.
3. Tort violates a right in rem (against the world at large), not in personam.

Short trick: Winfield = Tort (singular, wide net); Salmond = Torts (pigeon-holes).

Concept: In Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Lord Atkin delivered the leading speech laying down the ‘neighbour principle’ (snail in the ginger-beer bottle).

1. Majority: Lords Atkin, Thankerton, Macmillan; dissent: Buckmaster, Tomlin.
2. Lord Cairns – Rylands v. Fletcher (HL, 1868); Viscount Simonds – Wagon Mound (1961).

Short trick: Atkin = ‘Love your neighbour’ in law.

Concept: ‘The King can do no wrong’ is a doctrine of sovereign immunity (State liability), not a general principle of tortious liability.

1. Injuria sine damno (Ashby v. White) – legal injury without damage is actionable.
2. Damnum sine injuria (Gloucester Grammar School) – damage without legal injury is not actionable.
3. Volenti non fit injuria – general defence of consent.

Short trick: Damnum/Injuria/Volenti = basics of tort; ‘King’ = State immunity.

Concept: Res ipsa loquitur (‘the thing speaks for itself’) is a rule of evidence: it raises an inference of negligence and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

1. It applies in negligence cases (e.g. Byrne v. Boadle – barrel falling from a window) but does not itself create a head of liability.
2. Conditions: thing under defendant’s control; accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence; cause unexplained.

Short trick: Res ipsa = proof rule (burden shifts), used in negligence.

Concept: Blackburn J. (Court of Exchequer Chamber, 1866) stated the rule: a person who brings and keeps on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is prima facie answerable for all damage from its escape; the House of Lords (Lord Cairns) affirmed it in 1868, adding ‘non-natural use’.

1. Justice P. N. Bhagwati gave absolute liability in M. C. Mehta (1987), not strict liability.
2. Lord Atkin – neighbour principle (negligence).

Short trick: Blackburn = Strict; Bhagwati = Absolute.

Concept: In the Oleum gas leak case (M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, decided 20 Dec 1986, reported AIR 1987 SC 1086) a 5-judge bench headed by CJ P. N. Bhagwati laid down absolute liability for hazardous industries – no exceptions of Rylands v. Fletcher.

1. Compensation must be related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise (deterrent effect).
2. Kuldeep Singh – the ‘green judge’ of later M. C. Mehta cases; Krishna Iyer was never CJI.

Short trick: Bhagwati = Absolute (Oleum, Shriram Foods).

Concept: Match each case with its tort.

1. Bourhill v. Young (1943) – negligence (nervous shock; plaintiff not a foreseeable ‘neighbour’) → iii.
2. Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) – private nuisance (‘coming to the nuisance’ no defence) → ii.
3. Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) – damnum sine injuria → iv.
4. Newstead v. London Express Newspapers (1940) – unintentional defamation → i.

Short trick: Code a-iii, b-ii, c-iv, d-i: only option B has c–iv and d–i.

Concept: In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) the advertisement was a general offer to the world, continuing in nature – anyone who used the ball as directed and caught influenza could accept it by performance.

1. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt (1913) – general offer, but acceptance needs knowledge of the offer.
2. Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal – lowest/highest bid is not acceptance by itself; McGregor v. McGregor – compromise as consideration.

Short trick: Carlill = General + Continuing + Acceptance by performance.